So, I had a look at this a while back, thought it seemed interesting but the price tag was just too insane for me (I have no issues buying games, I got thousands of them, I do however, really dislike paying for early access and VERY few games will get my money since I generally think EA is close to a scam, yes, a scam. I'm a first generation gamer where developers PAID you to beta test things, then it changed to having to apply for it, then handed out for free to anyone and now you pay them for an unfinished game, so no, I don't agree with it except for games I've been following for a long time (DayZ for example)

That said, I do like the concept of this, but after watching a video a while back the guy was complaining it was too easy to finish with not enough stuff to do, so I thought I'd wait.

it goes on sale (at a pathetic 33% off) and I check the developers history on updates, and for an EA game - it's pathetic.

So I want to ask just how active are they? but my own question is pretty much answered from the store page, so is there a reason for the lack of activity?

I'm interested in hearing about this too. I've had this game on my wishlist for a long time, waiting to see how it progressed before I bought into its early access. The sale notification I received reminded me of it and now from my brief glance over the forums, I immediately got the impression that developer interaction here is lacking. A shame if this is true!

For all the flack that the devs of Folk Tale receive for their development progress (or lack thereof in the minds of some), the one thing that has made all the difference in my confidence level for that game is their daily activity on their forums and how diligent they are in answering questions. That's the primary reason why I felt comfortable buying that game in early access and why I still feel confident about that game now.

Same reason here, got some EA games, and in my eyes it often depends on developers, how appeiling the game in EA is. Starbound was a good buy for me, but only cause i can see progress and know the direction the game is going. Always loved Sci-Fi and Post Apocalyptic, and Simulation, Strategy and RPG so naturally i found this game. But not sure if i should spend 15 € on the thing without some intel.

Ive had the game since Alpha2 if I remember correctly and they usually update it once a month and sooner if there is a game crashing issue. This month has carried over a little bit. I dont take it as that they threw in the towel but are working longer on more content. If you check their website it will give you way more info than steam will.

It seems like monthly updates has moved to every other month. (last content update was 2/13, which was supposed to be a January release.) Nothing about the next release so its probably weeks away.

My biggest problem is to me Alpha 4 is way less playable than Alpha 3. Even after some of the pathing issues were fixed I would have serious game breaking pathing were they would refuse to do some things.

Compounded with the decompression from the asteroid hits makes it less fun, at least for me.

Its a fundamental problem with early access. You start paying (sometimes more than release price) for an unfinished product, you remove the developers' incentive to finish the game. Its simple.

Its up to users to stop paying for early access games mindlessly and demand road-maps and confirmed release dates.

If developers need funding to make a game, they should go to kickstarter. They should not put games on early access if they dont know when / if they are gonna be able to finish it.

Well thats your opinion and thats fine if you feel that way. Sorry if you have been burned by some EA game dev from the sound of it. I would probally feel that way too if I had been done wrong by some EA dev but I havent. I have supported quite a few EA games already this year and dont plan to stop if one of them stops develpoing a game. I will definatly speak my mind about it but I would not call for all EA releases to stop.

I think EA releases are fine and I love them, you just need to know what you are buying. Maybe read a bit first and do some research into what your about to purchse perhaps. I think EA is great for Indie game Devs to get out there. It gives them a way to release a game without an expensive publisher.

Now that doesnt mean this cannot and will not be abused by some Devs. It is up to the consumer to do his or her research. I dont think it is that big of a problem atm. I think most devs do what they say they will while a very few give the rest a bad name. So saying that they should completly stop doing EA games is just a little to extream.

EA releases are for people who want to contribute to the game while it is being developed anyway. Most people who buy a EA game know this and understand that there is a posibility if even so small that the game could not be finished. If you dont want to have an EA game, simply just dont buy it....

Compounded with the decompression from the asteroid hits makes it less fun, at least for me.

yea I felt that way at first too but now I just impliment that into my base design and have a plan for it when it occurs. ex. fire extinguishers in every room, separating my oxygen recyclers into several rooms vs one big room and or sealing a room if a hole punches through the floor.

Its up to users to stop paying for early access games mindlessly and demand road-maps and confirmed release dates.

Emphasis on "mindlessly", and I completely agree. The problem with early access is that people seem to have a very hard time understanding its true nature. Early access isn't for the customers, it's for the developers.

If you want to help out devs, buy games in early access. If you want a finished product, wait for release.

Its a fundamental problem with early access. You start paying (sometimes more than release price) for an unfinished product, you remove the developers' incentive to finish the game. Its simple.

All the games I've seen that cost more in early access than release price (Planetary Annihilation is the best-known example of this) is because they didn't want to screw their Kickstarter backers, which is perfectly acceptable (and is the way it should be, as far as I'm concerned).

Are there any games that charge more for early access than they intend to charge for the full release without a good reason? Maybe, but I don't know of any. If they do, they're ♥♥♥♥♥, I agree.

As far as kickstarted games go, though, it makes sense. Some kickstarted games have already made a deal with Steam to release on this platform once they're finished products (sometimes through Greenlight, sometimes with a deal made directly through Steam). My burger analogy kind of breaks down here, but I never said it was a perfect analogy.

It makes sense for these games to offer early access to the public since they're already offering access through Steam to their backers. This is good for devs to get more funding that they otherwise might, and allows potential customers to back the devs in case they missed the kickstarter.

What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that crowd funding, at its root, is a form of DONATION.

You're GIVING money to someone because you believe in their project and you want to help them succeed.

If you don't like that, that's fine, just don't buy early access games. Nobody's forcing you to.

Is jumping into an early access game a gamble? Absolutely. Might you get screwed by doing so? That's always a possibility, no matter how well-intentioned the devs are (and not all of them are well-intentioned).

In the end, it's about trust. Do you trust the devs to deliver? Do you believe in the project? Do you want to help them? If yes, then pay for early access.

If early access wasn't a thing, would they have found another way to get that money? It's Double Fine, so, probably. But who knows where it would have come from. And the simple fact remains that because of Steam Early Access, we don't have to worry about that, which is a good thing.

Your opinion is not very different from mine, Caesar. Ask developers to give proper roadmaps, estimate finish time etc before you pay - that is all I say. In other words know more about what you are buying into. I am not asking people to abandon early access all together.

However I do believe, early access is, by definition, pre-release access to a product that will eventually be FINISHED. That is it is called EARLY access, not alpha access or beta access or tech-demo access or something like that.

If it is as you say, then I dare these developers to mention it clearly in their early access description that "there is a possibility that the game would not be finished even if you pay for it".

@Elegant Caveman, your points are all good. All I ask is commitment from developers when they ask me to pay for something. Give a deadline, like in all real-life projects. Tell me clearly how you plan to progress. If you are unable to do that, then dont ask me to pay. These infinite-alpha projects are getting annoying.

I would still stand on the side of waiting at this point. It is fun but still quite light on content with very little feedback from the devs. The way ships dock with your base currently is buggy and annoying. There are still plenty of bugs which will leave you wondering exactly why everyone just died all at once. Needs a few more big patches and I see it being a little more consistent.

I'm with the OP. I do not want to pay for the privilge of being a tester. I want a finished produce. There have been games that has been on my wishlist for months yet are still in alpha. I am not interested in early access. If someone else is, that's great but to me that takes commitment and there are other things demanding my attention. Give me a date when you expect the game to be done, that's not much to ask. I'll buy it then. I'll pay full price then. If you want my money you have to give me something of corresponding value in exchange and Early Access for a game in perpetual development isn't it.

Its a fundamental problem with early access. You start paying (sometimes more than release price) for an unfinished product, you remove the developers' incentive to finish the game. Its simple.

Its up to users to stop paying for early access games mindlessly and demand road-maps and confirmed release dates.

If developers need funding to make a game, they should go to kickstarter. They should not put games on early access if they dont know when / if they are gonna be able to finish it.

Well thats your opinion and thats fine if you feel that way. Sorry if you have been burned by some EA game dev from the sound of it. I would probally feel that way too if I had been done wrong by some EA dev but I havent. I have supported quite a few EA games already this year and dont plan to stop if one of them stops develpoing a game. I will definatly speak my mind about it but I would not call for all EA releases to stop.

I think EA releases are fine and I love them, you just need to know what you are buying. Maybe read a bit first and do some research into what your about to purchse perhaps. I think EA is great for Indie game Devs to get out there. It gives them a way to release a game without an expensive publisher.

Now that doesnt mean this cannot and will not be abused by some Devs. It is up to the consumer to do his or her research. I dont think it is that big of a problem atm. I think most devs do what they say they will while a very few give the rest a bad name. So saying that they should completly stop doing EA games is just a little to extream.

EA releases are for people who want to contribute to the game while it is being developed anyway. Most people who buy a EA game know this and understand that there is a posibility if even so small that the game could not be finished. If you dont want to have an EA game, simply just dont buy it....

ofcourse we READ into in first? you guys come up with the same excuse every time. maybe you need to aknowledge the fact that most of these early access dev's simply want money.

I can see the "Age of Early Access" being looked back on as a scam in some aspects. Sure if it is used in the "right" way it may not be all that bad but what's to stop all these devs throwing something up here that they were doing as a "side job" and seeing immediate returns while 80% (or more) of their production is on an entirely different project in which they are being paid for.

So once a month or so they change a few skins or add a few weapons or textures and viola, good for another month and still trickling money in while they devote their time and attention to something else.

I think before a game gets early access on Steam it should have definitive plans and goals (say Fall of 2014 release date or so & not exact date) plus a good portion (50% or more) of the game already created. If you say that's not an Alpha then I say this should only be Beta Access on Steam. How many of these early access titles on here will fail in the coming year(s) with more and more Steam users demanding money back for false promises?

EDIT - This is by no means a bash on this game as I am talking about EA in general.